A ton of response from the in-tray. One reader:
The question pretty much answers itself in most cases – nothing. I think the more interesting question is, "To what extent have the 1% benefited disproportionately from public funds on infrastructure, education, and public safety?" I think the answer to that is generally "a lot." I am very much like you. I pay probably half my income in taxes of one form or another, including a sizeable chunk of federal income and payroll taxes. It pisses me off that someone like Romney can pay only 13.9% despite clearly disproportionate benefit. What I want is equity, not redistribution, and I think the majority of Americans would agree.
Another writes:
The trouble with Romney isn't that he's wealthy. The trouble is that he's rich for a living, the way some people are famous for being famous. His existing wealth allows him to accumulate – not generate – more wealth on an open-ended basis.
Another snarks:
Wilkinson is exactly right: the 1 percent get their money just like everyone else. I mean, who among us hasn’t inherited enormous wealth from their rich daddy, or lobbied to get special tax treatment for their income, or taken advantage of foreign tax shelters?
Another:
When I hear people trying to justify the rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, I'm reminded of the great line from The Family Guy: "I am Republican, the party that helps those who have the means to help themselves."
The problem with this wealth discrepancy isn't that someone has so much more money than another. It is that so much more money equates to so much more power than somebody else. And with greater power comes a greater need to protect that power, which leads to greater corruption. The corruption has become so evident. The playing field is now seriously tilted. The tax laws become more complex, which serves the rich. Investments become more complex, again serving the rich. Regulations are removed to help the wealth grow their riches while individual rights are reduced in the name of "national security". Corporations are people who can receive massive public subsidies and bailouts, while actual people don't have access to these things.
A growing disparity is a sign of a disease running below, not a sign of good health.
Another:
I have to comment on the post from Wilkinson. I am somewhere in that 30% – an in-house counsel at a corporation, making more money than most people who work there. However, I make a fraction of what our CEO and CFO make (as in 10%) because of this: We were bought by private equity a number of years ago. The owners bought us with leveraged funds. And then, our company took out a loan from our owners at 15%. In 2008. On the open market, we could have gotten a loan for 7-8%. Why would our CFO and CEO allow them to do this? Because their bonuses and salary increased 4 times. So no, the 1% don't make their money the way I do. I go to work every day, work long hours, check my blackberry constantly when I'm not there and get a 4% raise.
Another:
Reading your quote from Wilkinson helped me to finally mentally structure an internal struggle for years. I'm a small business owner/operator and business-minded liberal, meaning that I understand the need for regulation as a way of forcing the market to play reasonably fairly and I feel strongly that paying taxes is a privilege (if I'm making enough for my tax bill to be high, then I'm doing pretty well). However, the way we tax is arbitrary – we tax based upon results, not what went into those results. I can make $1 million on $10 million of sales, working hard to innovate, serve my customers, and pay my suppliers on time while a day-trader can make four trades to achieve the same revenue and not work another day in 2012. On December 31st, we end up with the same revenue, but I pay a higher effective tax rate. That seems insane to me.
The challenge is that my fellow liberals fail to recognize the difference in aggregate between these types of wealth. The gut-level assumption seems to suggest that capitalists are all motivated entirely by greed, are not contributing to society, and are screwing the middle class.
Many of the 1% folks I know come from working class backgrounds, investing a lot of time and energy in their educations and, in many cases, taking bold risks as entrepreneurs. They've done the right things – created jobs, paid their taxes, contributed to their communities in time/talent/treasure, and have realized that they're incredibly fortunate. They are angry that they're being lumped together with those who have contributed very little to society. They don't mind paying taxes, even a little more (many voted for Obama), but the demonization of their success is wearing on them.
The Dish 